Yes, it did indeed look like a nasty accident - but it wasn't Morgan, and it was also a comparatively old car, so could well have been caused by a component failure - something to which a modern Morgan would not be exposed in the same way.
Given that the components most likely to fail and cause an accident are the old style running gear rather than the engine, I cant see that, but I have to agree 100% with the rest of what you say.
I simply meant that a suspension component on a 50 year old, 250k mile car is more likely to fail than a 2 year old 10k mile car, even if they are of the same design.
I would be less sure. With something newly manufactured in small quantities and by an old manual process to an old design you will get failures due to poor quality work. The long thread about the Aero 5 illustrates that on a newish small volume design, as does the frequent chat about Morgan quality. The Aero that crashed into that house? Etc. Then you will get failures due to age and wear increasing as the car gets older. Maybe a graphn of failure rate would show some sort of valley from 2 years old to 10 years or so.
I agree. Some early problems within 2 years, these get sorted. A lull until longer term issues surface being due to design shortcomings, components starting to fail ( cheaper options chosen over better ones or lack of testing). Poor batch recording of build units so traceability is lost. A bad batch of components from suppliers then gets"lost".
There are many examples of this phenomenum in the Morgan world.
M3W is a classic. The continuing trad water leak issues for a design dating back to 1936!
Mind you, perhaps these characteristics are what draws us to Morgans!
